The Stability Control Debate

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Recently there have been a spate of reported incidences in which vehicles have, for whatever reason, become unstable or worse, unsafe, during high speed risky manouvres. Often these vehicles are tall, and rely on Stability control to save them from their own sheer incompetance.

The latest incident involves the Fiat/Citroen/Peugeot van triplets who, during a WHICH? test in the UK, demonstrated with stark effect the value of Stability control within these vehicles.

With thanks to AutoBlog/WHICH

This of course raises an interesting point as to the inheirant stability of many vehicles trundling about on todays roads. Often these stability management systems are derided by enthusiasts or the enthusiastic as dangerous - braking a wheel unnecessarily during controlled driving - however the opposite is also true, as these systems are proven to be ineffective and, in the recent case of the Lexus GX470, far too easy to overwhelm.

So I guess this is the catch 22 - create a system that overrides, risking driver involvement, or a system that doesn't intervene at all - risking the safety of those not bright enough to save themselves.

I see a lot of this linking back to the original Mercedes Benz A-Class - a vehicle who's unknown packaging challenges resulted in a mass of negative publicity for the car, but a rush of positive publicity for Traction Control systems. Lazy engineers see them as safety nets for poorly set up cars. Is this really acceptable?

It's all well and good to make the argument that drivers themselves should be understanding and capable in their dealings with their own vehicle - and it's a good argument to make, driver training is part of the reason we have these systems in the first place. But there is a secondary problem that seems fundamental to the design of modern vehicles - an overriding desire for packaging that upsets physics, it seems, and creates unstable vehicles that are increasingly reliant on electronic aids which have been proven time and time again to not be the best solution.

The next argument, I suppose, would be that these vehicles are being put through extreme situations by journalists who are testing them to fail. This is a fair point - they would have had to get a serious run up to get the Citroen on it's roof - but having said that they are not outside speeds the average driver would encounter, and surely the manufacturers own testing regime would have caught something.

The Van test is especially relevant - it shows how a system can be used to great effect, but when a vehicle is positively dangerous without it, is that the best solution, or merely a good patch up job?

[Ferrer]

First of all I don't think enthusiasts should consider these systems dangerous, at most they can be annoying when they cut the fun, sometimes abruptly, but as long as you can disconnect them I don't see any problem with having them in the car.

Secondly, if you drive like you shouldn't you are going to end up on the roof no matter what car you drive, even dedicated, low-slung sportscars. And of course, if you drive a taller car with a higher centre of gravity, it's all the more easy to roll it. So, advice number one should be, respect what you drive and you'll be fine in my opinion.

I don't think though that journalists are doing a bad job though. Yes, most of the situations they recreate aren't going to happen very often, but what if you find yourself in one? I think it's all good to have the most amount of information available. Another very different matter is how to treat this information, and this where I disagree with the general public. Why all those panic attacks, suing, recalls and so on? Back to point one, if you drive like an imbecile you are going to have an accident. In some cases accidents can't be avoided, so it's not like a million recalls and lawsuits are going to make a certain car accident-proof.

That however, doesn't detract form the fact that engineers should design cars that are as stable and as safe as possible, and electronic safety measures shouldn't be an excuse to desing bad handling or unstable cars that are then brought back to line by the stability controls.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The Van test was particularly interesting to me because it shows how much that vehicle relys on it's traction control system to save it from it's own mass.

And with Three manufacturers investing time, energy and resources, they couldn't have fixed the problem?

[Sledgehammer]

The question isnt whether to have the system or not, its whether the system does more harm than good. In my experience, stability programs comes in handy more often in snow and ice rather than extreme braking manuvers. Since 90% of the time, these are the conditions which require its use, its more useful to have it. It sounds like the debate is should stability programs be used to override the laws of physics.

[Ferrer]

But, wouldn't an older have toppled over as well? In this case I think the TCSs, ESPs and the likes are a helpful safety feature that can prevent accidents, and it's not like you can design a low, wide tracked, massively tyred van.

By the way, these vans are apparently Punto-based. I'm guessing it was Fiat who did the work on the chasis, so probably in this area only Fiat invested time and money.

[Commodore GS/E]

The Van test was particularly interesting to me because it shows how much that vehicle relys on it's traction control system to save it from it's own mass.

And with Three manufacturers investing time, energy and resources, they couldn't have fixed the problem?

Maybe they were simply thinking that no one would notice that their cars weren't really safe. Money can't be the reason because fitting a stability programme isn't that expensive. The problem was (as i think) that in this way, the Nemo would have become more expensive and in this way more expensive which would have made it less competative in it's low-price segment.

[pimento]

I see no problem with tweaking the nose of physics in order to make an otherwise competent MPV more stable when avoiding meese (that's the plural for moose, right?). While I agree that anything that claims to be sporty should have a chassis that can handle the engine and whatnot, something roly poly like an MPV suits a few nannying electronic systems to keep it upright. 'Tis all about the application of the systems. Seeing a Merc on a track wobbling about due to a stability system that can't be turned off is depressing, seeing an MPV remain upright in a violent manouvre is pleasing.

[Matra et Alpine]

Commodore, an esp is expensive as it needs to operate a pressure system on the braking.
ABS only has to modulate to REDUCE the pressure being applied, stability is a much higher level of engineering and equipment to provide pressure that can be used to apply individual braking at corners. As well as additional sensors for yaw, pitch and steering.

SHame but I think thi sis simple economics and ..... I think it shodul be left to the owner in these cases to decide if to drive CAREFULLY anbd have a low cost car OR to drive with brain-detached and spend another £1000 on the car !!

[Ferrer]

SHame but I think thi sis simple economics and ..... I think it shodul be left to the owner in these cases to decide if to drive CAREFULLY anbd have a low cost car OR to drive with brain-detached and spend another £1000 on the car !!

What if you have to swerve violently because an object (car, animal, person...) suddenly appears on your way?

[RacingManiac]

ESP is only a backup for driver's brain. The operator should drive for the condition, car load, and type of vehicle he is driving. At the end of the day if the driver wants to be a jackass and do unreasonable thing to the car no amount of ESP can save you. There are those instance though that say, at 80mph on cruising speed on a highway, you suddenly need to avoid something, then ESP should help you negate potential of excessive sliding and/or roll over.

[Matra et Alpine]

What if you have to swerve violently because an object (car, animal, person...) suddenly appears on your way?

The you are driving too fast for the conditions and events going on around you

[RacingManiac]

The you are driving too fast for the conditions and events going on around you

I don't think that's entirely fair. Speed limit here is 70mph, traffic is generally at 80, and you only do that if the flow is good. But on a perfectly good day, there is also a chance that animal(deers usually) may get onto the road and people may well try to avoid it. That's unforeseen and impossible to anticipate for.

(although apparently, the best course of action in those instance is to actually hit the animal as opposed to avoiding it, since the possible chance of a more serious accident is higher if you lost control)

[Matra et Alpine]

Driving fast has NOTHING to do with the speed limit.

If I see a bunch of kids running along the side of a motorway I don't keep caning past them at 70 6 feet away

So then if I come into an area with wild animals around then first, the driver increases their attention on the road all the way out to the horizon, at the peripheral activities and locations. WHich are likely to have a risk - in the case you cite of an animal running out. WHen the risk is high ebnough then SLOW DOWN.

THe only accident "unforeseen and impossible to anticipate" is a bolt of lightning from God and a part falling off an overhead plane. ALL the rest have a level of anticipation you can make wrt the surrroundings.

WHat I am talking about is anticiaption of the RISK and the actions SENSIBLE to take given that. So for example in some states the roads are through heavily populated (animals) woodland and very little gap from trees to road. It's not viable to drive so slowly and espsecially when the RISK is high but the CHANCE is low - eg middle of day, animals less likely to be about. In Scotland, it's dusk/dawn when you will encounter a deer or rabbit. On open country roads, most sheep if 6+ feet from side of the road will NOT go toward it, BUT if any of those are YOUNG sheep then VERY high chance of one running across. So tere the RISK and the CHANCE are higha nd warrants driving a lot slower. IN some places a walking pace.

THe "safety" mindset of the buying public tends to ignore that the most imoprtant safety device are our eyes, ears and brains. So then we end up tryign to make CARS be safe because we forget to be.


Totally agree on your last point and in fact when I was learning to drive my dad was VERY CLEAR. If an animal runs out in front of you then DO NOT SWERVE. Hit it and we'll repair the car later.

[clutch-monkey]

The Van test was particularly interesting to me because it shows how much that vehicle relys on it's traction control system to save it from it's own mass.

And with Three manufacturers investing time, energy and resources, they couldn't have fixed the problem?

interesting, but i think if a manufacturer needs stability control to keep it's car stable it needs to go back to the drawing board..

[coolieman1220]

I'm thinking these systems are becoming sales gimmicks. companies say oh well this one has it so to sell i must have it too! however i do believe all cars should come with some sort of traction control/stability control, especially rear wheel drive cars. i think they must also have a kill switch. from experience, i rarely drive the G35 with its VDC off unless i wanna do a burnout or something like that or i'm going up a steep drive in the snow. in the rain it stays on all the time. It has come on in times where i think it could have helped me. for instance one day it was raining i was going over a bridge and i stepped on the gas, the car downshifted over the expansion back and while i was doing about 40mph it skidded on the metal expansion gap. this could have been dangerous if i were switching lanes but immediately i saw my "SLIP" light come on and i was like why? then i realized why. It does work in most situations. however i think it is no excuse for a car to not meet benchmark standards without them. i also think the average driver does not ever have them kick in when they drive. some cars i think come with way too many stability traction options. fifth gear has a great video on traction control systems. like AWD just because you have them you are not invincible...

On a side note, my most educational driving experience was in the G with about 4" of snow in an empty parking lot. i was familiar with how the car would react but i never did it. i drove around, and turned and slid and learned how to control my skid/drift with my throttle. i learned a lot on what to do if i ever lost control. it was very beneficial to me.